The trend in business relations has been towards an acceptance and welcoming of gay and lesbian clients and appreciation of them as customers. This may be because of the perception that product loyalty is particularly strong in gay consumers or because businesses generally believe that moralistic rants drive away not only gay customers but also those who love them.

Which made it all the more surprising to find that Insure.com, an online insurance purveyor, has been hosting articles that make false and defamatory statements about gay men and women.

In addition to selling insurance, they provide information about the insurance industry. Joe White, an employee and company blog contributor, wrote two pieces in which he claimed that “being gay” was a health risk, and not just a minor one.

In an article on the business website entitled Top five ways to kill yourself and get away with it, White lists the number one way to kill yourself:

1. Being gay. A gay lifestyle is by far the biggest risk to life expectancy that goes unrecognized by insurance companies. The question has been considered by multiple studies, and the gay lifestyle is universally acknowledged to decrease life expectancy. A conservative estimate is that a gay lifestyle takes away 8-20 years from the average lifespan.

In other words, living a homosexual lifestyle has health risks at least as severe as smoking (by some estimates even more), but due to the sensitive nature of the issue, life insurance companies don’t charge different rates for gays. So gays save money on life insurance at the same rate they die young.

It’s a loaded subject, but let’s get right down to it: gay men, on average, die significantly younger than the rest of the population.

Vancouver Study
Part of the bases for White’s wild claim is an extrapolation from a 1997 study from Robert Hogg entitled Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men. It was based on research performed in Vancouver from 1987 through 1992. The question that they were trying to answer was not the mortality of gay men, but rather the impact that HIV might have on the gay population.

White acknowledges that this study was of HIV positive individuals but then says something curious: “Many who read the study, however, understood it to categorize the gay lifestyle as inherently hazardous.”

Perhaps recognizing that “Impact” means the opposite of “inherently”, White did not reveal the name of the study. Further, the only persons who read some inherent hazard into sexual orientation were anti-gay activists and writers. In fact, this so annoyed the authors that they responded to the claims of anti-gays with a letter of clarification.

Mr. White was aware of the letter; he references part of it.

In the same letter, the researchers reiterated their original claim, that a gay man in Vancouver had the same life expectancy as a Canadian man in 1870, 8-21 years shorter than the average male today.

The wording in the letter is

The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871.

That does sound ominous, if you stop there. Which is exactly what Mr. White chose to do. He opted to eliminate the substance of the words following this quote:

In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia .

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man’s risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.

This is a most curious edit. By leaving out the above paragraphs, White leaves the reader believing exactly the opposite what the authors intended. They did not “reiterate their original claim”; rather, they reported that circumstances had changed significantly and that their statistics were no longer applicable.

While Vancouver during the late 80’s may have had a large number of HIV positive individuals, and while they may have been dying young, this cannot be extrapolated to any other geographic region or time.

Paul Cameron
But Mr. White did not rely solely on the Vancouver study (with selectively eliminated information). He also based his claims on a familiar source, Paul Cameron.

In 2005, Dr. Paul Cameron, the President of the Family Research Institute, published a study in Psychological Reports that confirmed a 20-year life expectancy gap for actively gay men. Researchers performed the study by examining gay obituaries and comparing them with data from the Center for Disease Control. Both data sets put the average age of death for gay men about 20 years younger than average.

Those of us who are familiar with Cameron and his followers know that these claims are fraudulent. But others relying on White’s claims might not know that Dr. Paul Cameron has been thoroughly discredited.

He has been dropped from the American Psychological Association, condemned by the Nebraska Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the Canadian Psychological Association and been barred from presenting himself as an “expert” in at least one courtroom. And even the anti-gay fringe disavowed Cameron after he lauded Rudolph Höss, the camp commandant of Auschwitz, and his efforts to eradicate homosexuality.

this revised estimate would establish the life expectancy of gay males to be at least 20 years below average.

This classifies gay men with a graver risk of mortality than smokers and the obese—perhaps the highest mortality risk for any demographic its size.

Are there Mortality Variances?
To the best of my knowledge, there have been no serious studies that reveal any difference in average age of death between heterosexual and homosexual persons. But that does not mean that such a difference does not exist.

Various demographics of persons do have different average life expectancies.

Many factors impact life expectancy – genetics, diet, exercise, smoking, drugs and alcohol, stress, marital status, poverty, and many many more. And there are likely to be some characteristics that result from the social patterns found more often in the gay community.

But we cannot know whether the increased emphasis on diet, exercise, health, and body awareness leads to a measurable average increase in life expectancy. Nor can we know whether a higher incidence of drug use or stress related to discrimination or rejection leads to a measurable decrease. We don’t even know if enough gay persons share enough stereotypical characteristics that these presumed risk factors can impact the gay population as a whole.

During the 80’s and early 90’s we know that deaths from AIDS related illnesses impacted the gay community much more severely than the population at large. But current drug regimens have brought the life expectancy for some HIV positive persons to be nearly that of non-infected persons. And even if there is some reduction due to HIV infection, this subpopulation is only about 15% of gay men and no measurable percentage of lesbians.

Perhaps there is some mortality variance, but neither White nor myself have any idea as to what it might be. And only a highly irresponsible insurance provider would provide to its clients “information” that is both defaming and demonstrably false.

Corporate Response
On June 1, we contacted the Robert “Bob” Bland, the CEO of Insure.com and informed him that his company was hosting articles that were factually inaccurate and based on the work of an anti-gay activist that had been discredited.

Bland responded that because the articles were based on third party studies and not original research they would require time to do fact-checking. He did not pull the articles.

We offered to provide Bland with additional information, if needed. He responded:

I may, thank you. We want to do a wider-ranging issue that is fair and balanced and include more research and debate, maybe even quotes from you and your organization.

Can you give me a list of studies or links regarding gay male life expectancy that you think may be valid? Or are you saying that there’s no difference in mortality there?

We discovered that, while the 35 major life insurance companies do not ask about sexual orientation, virtually all of them immediately decline any applicant who is HIV positive, indicating to me that their actuaries have sound data showing reduced mortality for this group, just as they decline anybody who engages in risky hobbies or racing.

We provided Mr. Bland with thorough information about the invalidity of Whites sources as well as clarifying for him that HIV status does not equate to sexual orientation. He responded by repeating his “risky hobbies” comment. That was on June 12th.

On the 28th I wrote inquiring how the research was coming and whether they were going to continue to host the anti-gay articles on their site. Bland responded:

Other priorities came in front of this. This could take 1-4 more weeks as we have limited editorial resources. We’ve never hosted anti-homosexual articles at our site and have no corporate agenda on this issue whatsoever.

As of this writing, the Top Five Ways to Kill Yourself article is no longer at the web address. But those persons wishing to find fun insurance facts can still read that gay men die 20 years sooner, on average, than straight men. Mr. Bland has not clarified why he does not believe this to be an “anti-homosexual” article.

No doubt Insure.com does have some accurate information on their website. But considering the extent to which they are willing to accommodate and defend myth, lies, and homophobic ranting, I would be more trusting of a fast-talking guy with a bad toupee to accommodate my insurance buying needs.

I’ve sent an email to Kanetix (a Canadian online insurance broker, with a link from insure.com) to ask them if they agree with the homophobic propaganda and outright lies and fabrications put forth by insure.com.

I’ve noticed numerous awards/honors/credentials at the bottom of the insure.com home page, anyone tried contacting these people? The BBB probably can’t do anything, but the rest may care about being connected with that sort of lying.

@Timothy
I’m disappointed at the male-centeredness of this article. Half of homosexuals are female, right? Give or take. Was insure.com only include males? If so, it would be nice if you had pointed that out. It’s extremely relevant because lesbians have lower HIV rate than heterosexual women.

I’m not in the community that much, but my impression is gay men have a healthier diet and exercise more than heterosexual men.

Box Turtle Bulletin is too anxious to bash Insure.com and you posted private e-mails from me to you without my permission, which says more about you than me. I’ve been open and forthright in dealing with Box Turtle’s many recent inquiries.

The article(s) you’ve referenced are but one or two over 3,000 that we have posted at Insure.com since 1996.

This particular article talks about third party studies that have claimed that homosexuals have a markedly different life expectancy than heterosexuals. We posted this as a human interest story from an actuarial standpoint and without any political agenda whatsoever and without comment as to the accuracy of the third party research.

One’s sexual orientation has no bearing on how a life insurance agency, including ours, would go about quoting life insurance.

We represent 35 leading life insurance companies and do not know of any that ask about sexual orientation at the time of quoting or at anytime during underwriting. Furthermore, sexual orientation is NOT considered or asked about in the quoting or underwriting of a life insurance policy. When quoting a life insurance policy, we, as an agent and broker, ask only those questions that are required to be asked by each life insurance company, which is typically an exhaustive set of 50-100 questions about one’s health history, past and current. Every U.S. life insurance company that I know of does ask each applicant if they are HIV positive and, to the best of my knowledge, each company will automatically then decline such an applicant, so apparently the life underwriters are convinced that that medical condition is somehow relative to one’s longevity.

As I explained to you earlier this week we’ve been delayed in having our writers and editors take a another look at this article, but still expect to do so over the next 4 weeks because we want to make certain that we encompass all available current research on this topic.

Once again, Insure.com has no political agenda on this issue and never has had any such agenda.

I understand what mr. bland is saying but he has to realize just how pernicious lies like what was printed in that column are.

Someone can now claim that an insurance company has problems with selling policies to gays because of that column. I know it sounds farfetched but I have seen members of the anti-gay industry take wrong claims and manipulate them for their own agenda.

To me Mr. Bland’s response seems like a red herring. He says the article was only a “human interest story” and meant to be read by actuaries. Would they have published the same type of story about African American males? Life Insurance companies historically charged African American males (and females) more until they realized it was not the color of a person’s skin that dictated longevity. Saying this factually incorrect article is merely “human interest” is meant to divert attention from its true anti-gay purpose. Once Insure.com starts posting articles on other ethnic groups having short life expectancies then I will believe his statement that they have “no political agenda.” They will not do so and his statement is blatently false.

Jayson,
We have no anti-Gay purpose or agenda here at Insure.com and I did not write that our article on Gay mortality was meant to be read by actuaries; I wrote that it was a “human interest article from an actuarial standpoint.”
Insure.com is devoted to providng information to consumers, not professionals, and we have no political agenda of any kind.
And speaking of the subject of increased mortality of African-Americans vs. white Americans, and how life insurane companies can no longer charge by race, we have written on this subject many times and have several of our 3,000 articles devoted to this subject going back many years. It’s well established in the medical literature that significant differences between Black mortality vs. white in America exist. It’s also true that no life insurance company today will dare charge for this disparity because of political correctness or state regulations specific to this issue, but that does not change this sad scientific fact.
Significant differences in mortality also exist between males and females, but a few states prohibit such rate differences, again for political purposes.

So then why didn’t the “top 5 ways” article not say “be a black male” rather than “be gay”, if the data for those catagories are so robust?

Oh, right, because that’s the kind of insulting generalisation we DON’T accept anymore. Writing gays die early is OK though, because you can diss the gays and get away with it, even if the data your human interest article is based on is shaky as hell.

I believe Bland has no agenda. I also believe he has no sensitivity whatsoever on this issue and is acting like an a-hole.

The Insure.com articles first cited by the Box Turtle writers were about gay mortality vs. the general population, not black mortality vs. the general population.

We expect to take another look at this article over the next 4 weeks because we want to make certain that we encompass all available current research on this topic. We think that there’s a human interest story to be researched here on why all U.S. life insurers decline HIV-positive applicants (many of whom are healthy and have been for two decades) but will not even attempt to segregate gays who, according to a growing body of evidence, may have a much shorter lifespan than non-gays.

Once again, Insure.com has no political agenda on this issue and never has had any such agenda and does not conduct any scientific research on its own. And we do think that the results of our research will be of interest to many people, regardless of what side you may be on from a political perspective.

The writers of Box Turtle have shown nothing to discredit or refute the accuracy of any of our 3,000 articles about insurance; they seem to simply want to harm us and embarrass me personally ad hominem. I’m an easy target because our company is publicly-held.

In 2005, Dr. Paul Cameron, president of the Colorado-based Family Research Institute, published a study in Psychological Reports that confirmed a 20-year life expectancy gap for actively gay men. Researchers performed the study by examining gay obituaries and comparing them with data from the Center for Disease Control. Both data sets put the average age of death for gay men about 20 years younger than average.

Immediately, critics objected to this study, claiming that only gay men who had died were included, which would skew the results toward shorter life expectancy. The numbers would only work out, according to critics, if every gay man died of AIDS, which is obviously a faulty premise.

Then, in early 2007, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron reported at the Eastern Psychological Association convention that married gays and lesbians lived about 24 fewer years than their married heterosexual counterparts. This time, the Camerons extracted official data from Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002. Married heterosexual men died in Denmark die at a median age of 74, while 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.

The Drs. Cameron also looked at official data from Norway and re-confirmed that their data was gleaned from official census bureau data of both counties.

Eerily, the 2007 Cameron findings of official Scandinavian gay mortality statistics closely matched that of their earlier 2005 research derived from U.S. obituaries.

Canadian Doctor Anarag Markanday, who recently testified in a February 2008 court case involving HIV said this: â€œItâ€™s like a death sentenceâ€¦ while we can keep the virus suppressed, we are going to run out of options.â€ Once diagnosed with HIV, the average lifespan of such a person is 8 to 10 years he testified.

None of this is being made up by Insure.com and none of this is Insure.com’s research. But it does seem to underscore that more research is needed and perhaps less personal attacks.

I really don’t think you investigated Paul Cameron. Box Turtle Bulletin has given you a complete picture regarding Cameron’s distortion. You should take it upon yourself to either research from this site or google “Paul Cameron” to see that the claims made about him are correct.

Regarding this new one about the 2007 conference:

The Eastern Psychological Association rebuked Paul Cameron for misrepresenting his appearance at one of their meetings. Cameron claimed he presented a paper when in actuality, he took part in a 70-person poster presentation.

And I think that Box Turtle Bulletin goes into detail about this also.

Box Turtle Bulletin is not trying to make personal attacks on your person or your company. The fact of the matter is that you are not only using bad research but now you are refusing to admit any wrongdoing when it is obvious that the data in question is incorrect.

I suggest you take a deep breadth. We have had no interest whatsoever to attack you or harming your company. This is why Timothy first wrote you back on June 1. If we were bent on embarrassing you or your company, we could have gone public then. But we recognize that many people who aren’t familiar with Paul Cameron may mistake his brand of “science” for the real thing.

This isn’t personal against you. In fact, I personally tried to reassure you when I wrote on June 2:

As editor of the web site, please be assured that we are not prepared to publish anything without giving you and your company a reasonable amount of time to verify the problems with Cameron’s research. I’d also like to add that if there is any way in which we can be of assistance to you, please don’t hesitate to ask.

We look forward to working with you and your company in resolving this situation.

You responded cordially and asked for some information, which we supplied. You asked for more time, saying that “other priorities” were getting in the way. We understood and waited. Five weeks after first contacting you, we were concerned that this was never going to become a priority so Timothy contacted you again. Finally, Timothy’s article appeared on July 11, just one day shy of six weeks after we brought this to your attention.

Now that this is public and you continue to defend Cameron’s pseudo-science, I suggest however that you take a closer look at his work, which we encouraged you to do back when Timothy first contacted you. That 2007 study you cite was debunked as bad science on our web site, which Timothy provided your company on his very first email on June 1. But we weren’t the only ones to identify problems with it. It was also debunked by American psychologist (and social conservative) Dr. Warren Throckmorton, and Danish epidemiologist Morten Frisch described the report as having “little to do with science… The methodological flaws are of such a grave nature that no decent peer-reviewed scientific journal should let it pass for publication.”

And indeed, none has. Citing a publication like Psychological Reports is likely to impress someone not familiar with the publication, but it is, in fact, a pay-to-publish journal — which means that they will publish virtually anything for a fee. (That fee is $27.50 per page in multiples of four pages, plus additional fees for tables and figures.) No legitimate peer-reviewed journal does this due to the obvious conflict of interest this presents. It’s why Psychological Reports is virtually the only journal which publishes Cameron’s work.

As for what Drs. Cameron “reported” at the Eastern Psychological Association convention, we contacted Dr. Phil Hineline, president of the EPA, in April 2007, and he wrote a public letter condemning the Camerons for misrepresenting their participation at the convention. They did not present a “report” at all. All they did was participate in a “poster session,” in which they were among dozens of others maning a table in a large hall with a poster of some of their data. According to Dr. Hineline, the data they submitted to the EPA had nothing to do with lifespans at all — it had been added later.

Fast moves like these are nothing new for Cameron. On Timothy’s first email contact on June 1, he provided you with information on Cameron’s 1983 expulsion from the American Psychological Association, his censure from the Nebraska Psychological Association (where he lived at the time) in 1984, and his two censures from the American Sociological Association in 1985 and 1986.

As for Cameron’s many “obituary” studies, they essentially follow the same old methodology that has been rejected by epidemiologists for decades. His methods have been debunkedrepeatedly . Nick Eberstadt at the American Enterprise Institute described Cameron’s methods as “ridiculous,” and John Karon, statistician for the CDC also found his methodology flawed. Bill Bennett, not exactly a friend of the gay community, cited a nearly identical study in 1997, but once he learned of how it was done, he wrote, â€œGiven what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameronâ€™s study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual lifespan is 43 years.â€

Even Exodus International, which works closely with Focus On the Family to lobby against civil rights for gays and lesbians, has pulled their references to Paul Cameron. Focus themselves scrubbed their materials of anything associated with Cameron more than a decade ago.

And finally, we also sent you this about Cameron, his own admitted admiration for how the Nazis “dealt with” homosexuality, written from his own hand. It is this mindset which drives virtually everything he writes.

I highly recommend that you please reconsider where you’re getting your information. It is clearly tainted. The CDC — despite Cameron’s protestations — does not back your data. And as for Dr. Markandy, he should read this week’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, which found that life expectancy of those with HIV is actually approaching something closer to normal.

Mr. Bland, you reassured us on June 2 that you have no political agenda, and that in your 24 years in business you have never asked about anyone’s sexual orientation before hiring them. We take you at your word and commend you. We have tried to work with you. You asked for information, and we provided it. You asked for time, and we provided that as well — six week’s worth.

But since Friday, you have written several comments on this web site, and you have left comments on at least one other web site as well, claiming that we are “too anxious to bash Insure.com.” You have decided it was a priority to take the time to write these comments, and yet you haven’t found it to be a priority to simply have someone hit the delete button on the offending article. The remedy for all this is incredibly simple. We haven’t even asked for an apology because we didn’t think one was necessary. But instead you stake your reputation and that of your company in defending it. I frankly find this puzzling.

The writers of Box Turtle have shown nothing to discredit or refute the accuracy of any of our 3,000 articles about insurance; they seem to simply want to harm us and embarrass me personally ad hominem regarding a single article on homosexual longevity, admittedly a hot topic, but worthy of debate and research.

Iâ€™m an easy target because our company is publicly-held. We are not endorsing or passing judgement on the accuracy of Dr. Cameron’s research as that job belongs to qualified scientists. I’ve not seen the resumes of Tim Kincaid or Jim Burroway.

[The remainder of this comment is a word-for-word copy of this comment left earlier on this very same thread. Cut-and-paste dialog is not dialog at all. It’s a monologue. We will be happy to host original comments which carry the dialogue further. We will not host a stuck record. — Jim B.]

“The writers of Box Turtle have shown nothing to discredit or refute the accuracy of any of our 3,000 articles about insurance;”

Actually, they have, the article on homosexual lifespans is in dispute and is gathered from biased and unreliable “”research”” (double quotes, double warning) by a thoroughly discredited nazi-sympathizer.

“they seem to simply want to harm us and embarrass me personally ad hominem regarding a single article on homosexual longevity, admittedly a hot topic, but worthy of debate and research.”

Please delineate the ad hominem attacks, I’ve seen none. Is the “single article” you refer to not part of the 3,000 articles about insurance? because if it is part of them, your first statement is a boldfaced lie.
Keeping this article on your website not only endangers your reputation, your company’s reputation, and the 35 insurance companies you utlize, it also calls into question the accuracy of the other 2,999 articles on your website. As CEO you should be concerned about protecting your company’s integrity, clearly you don’t.

[The remainder of this comment is a word-for-word copy of this comment left earlier on this very same thread. It is now clear that Bland is not bothering to read anything anyone else is saying on this thread. Cut-and-paste repetition in lieu of dialogue and addressing specific points raised on this thread is both rude and unacceptable. If this behavior continues, we will place Mr. Bland on moderation and post only those comments which are not repetitious of other comments left on the same thread. — Jim B.]

“As part of the corporate leadership team, financial officers are vested with both the responsibility and authority to protect, balance, and preserve the interests of all of the Company’s stakeholders, including stockholders, clients, employees, suppliers, and citizens of the communities in which business is conducted.”

It would seem to me that you have failed to protect, balance, and preserve the interests of several stakeholders of your company. The LGBT people in the communities in which you operate are perhaps the most obvious group that you have let down – but they are certainly not the only group. If I were an employee or shareholder I would find your defence of Paul Cameron inexcusable!

Letâ€™s talk about the alleged 2005 Paul Cameron study. This is not a new study because Cameron had been pushing this lie since the 80s. It was originally called the Longevity of Homosexuals.

Like pretty much all of Cameronâ€™s work, the study, The Longevitity of Homosexuals, derives from his infamous 1983 survey regarding gays and lesbians. The survey contained many errors. Of over 4,000 people asked questions regarding sexual behavior, only 65 claimed to be gay or lesbian. Even before the study was completed, Cameron had publicly said it will prove negatives about gays and lesbians.

Also, what would you say when it is pointed out that one of the â€œcriticsâ€ of Cameronâ€™s 2005 â€œstudyâ€ was the Centers for Disease Control, the very place where he claimed to have gotten some of his research:

Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDCâ€™s National Center for HIV,
STD, and TB Prevention, said:

â€œ[The CDC] does not collect statistics on the life span of gay men. While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS, AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.â€

In addition, Cameron has been accused (and righfully so) of having a slant and bias in his research on many occasions:

1982 – He invented a story about a child being mutilated in the bathroom by a gay man. When the police investigated and found the story to be false, he admitted to making it up.

1983 – He was kicked out the American Psychological Association after an investigation that he distorted the work of six researchers to prove negative theories about gay men.

1984 – A. Nicholas Groth, director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, complained to the Nebraska Board of Examiners of Psychologists about Paul Cameronâ€™s usage of his work to make the claim that gays molest children at a high rate.

1985 – The Midwest Sociological Society censures Paul Cameron. Also, the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems both pass resolutions against him.

I find it sad that you as a professional would claim that any work by this man is accurate.

Paul Cameron, one of the nationâ€™s leading researchers on the health dangers of the homosexual lifestyle, was the first scientist to document the health effects of second-hand tobacco smoke (1967), the shortened lifespan of those who engage in homosexuality (1992), and the more frequent molestation of charges by homosexual foster parents (2003).
He has served as an expert for the federal government and 5 states. In addition, he has testified as an expert witness regarding homosexual parents in 11 states.
His website is: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/.

I can’t believe this guy is defending a Nazi sympathizer. What the hell? Does he despise gay equality that much that he feels he needs to align with anybody who agrees, no matter how f***** up they are?? “No Agenda” my ass.

Robert, LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. Don’t just take some nutcase’s website for its word. BTB provides PLENTY of it. Even people with anti-gay agendas who SAY they have anti-gay agendas don’t use Paul Cameron’s “research” anymore.

You’re out on a limb with this one. You’re alone.

And please, PLEASE, actually look at the comments being posted in response to you. They provide valuable resources.

I donâ€™t think he is reading, Emily. All the comments are just visual blah blah blahâ€¦yaddah yaddah yaddah. In one eye and out the other.

How could a business or businessperson be taken seriously when they opt to reference a website with â€œfamilyâ€ in the URL. Most people would be suspect this URL is just another nutty organization with extreme biases. I know my business associates would be skeptical and keep their distance in case some embarrassing ties might be made. It could negatively affect their careers. But, I guess Mr. Bland is not too worried about that.

So how come Mr. Bland has time to keep coming back to and writing (or at least c/p-ing) long responses at this blog, but not enough time to author new articles, find new articles, or edit the site?

Curious and curiouser.

I came late to the party, Jim, but I thank you very much for letting the community know where not to go for insurance. And to think, people accuse us bisexuals of wanting things both ways, when Mr. Bland defines trying to have things both ways right here. Those rambles he’s posted all boil down, to my eyes, to “Oh, let me insult you, but give me your money anyway.”

In short, Cameron’s studies have been refuted numerous times. His shoddy methodology and tendency to misrepresent his sources has gotten him kicked out of the APA, and has inspired other professional associations to release statements distancing themselves from his research. All of this is a matter of public record, and all of this can be verified with fairly little effort on your part.

Do yourself a favour and examine the sources provided here. At this point, your obvious lack of information reflects poorly not only on yourself, but on your company.

I was led to Box Turtle by The Southern Poverty Law Center and their Hatewatch newsletter. I very much appreciate the information you have provided and the civilized tone of the comments. I believe it is time to begin disseminating more widely the information about this company, its clients and the now obvious political agenda of it’s CEO, Mr. Bland. Like Coors and Cracker Barrel, Insurance.com must be held accountable for its actions.

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.